Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: TheRedneck

Insinuation is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps you are feeling a bit defensive?

I've made my opinions on studies abundantly clear, no insinuation.

a reply to: Phage

What is false ?

Controls involving placebos for unproven treatments are not unethical

I seem to remember the Remdesivir trial wasn't completed because it appeared those on the control placebo group would at a higher risk of dying. So was unethical to continue, even though there wasn't a statistical difference in outcomes.

PolitiFact - Yes, at least five randomized controlled studies say hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help

Studies from the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Spain looked at whether hydroxychloroquine prevented people from getting infected with the coronavirus, or helped them recover faster.

All of the studies randomly assigned patients to treatment and control (non-treatment) groups.

None of the studies found that hydroxychloroquine made a difference.

Source

a reply to: puzzled2

I seem to remember the Remdesivir trial wasn't completed because it appeared those on the control placebo group would at a higher risk of dying.

Source? I'd need a little more information, that sounds somewhat simplistic.

My main issue here is this. Sure, there’s all kinds of furor, debate, and attention to hcq. Meanwhile, vitamins d and c have been shown in some studies to have even better effects than hcq, and with no side effects, and at a lower cost. So why aren’t they being researched more? It would be far better to have all our population taking d and c, which you can indefinitely, with no side effects at effective doses (or even much higher) and I also expect there would be significant reductions in mortality from many other diseases.....and yet nothing.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

And none of those 5 trials mirrored the treatment proposed by front line doctors.

Try again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here's one that looked at your precious zinc.

The primary end point was additionally assessed by medication adherence, zinc use, or vitamin C use as post hoc analyses. The Supplement gives additional detail on statistical methods and sensitivity analyses.

www.acpjournals.org...

Here's one which is underway:
clinicaltrials.gov...


Do you think all those people upon hydroxychloroquine had no effect were zinc deficient? Is that the problem?

a reply to: Phage

Wow you can research and reply with the deleted wikipages of a UFOlogist dig out sources from 2009 on TLR but lookup Remdesivir trail being stopped because of controlled placebo ethics is beyond you.
Probably didn't agree with your view on ethics not allowing controlled uses not to benefit from drugs in a clinical double blind trails.
for your source take your pick .
duckduckgo

a reply to: Phage

did they test for their Zinc level prior to giving them a zinc Ionophore?

no 1 sign of zinc deficiency is a weak immune system. look it up in your favorite site.

a reply to: puzzled2
Thanks.

I still can't find anything to support your claim.

I seem to remember the Remdesivir trial wasn't completed because it appeared those on the control placebo group would at a higher risk of dying

1) Specifically what trial was not completed for the reason you claim? There was a study in China which was halted, but that was because there were not enough participants.

This article was amended on 30 April 2020. An earlier version said that the remdesivir trial had been stopped early because of side-effects. Although some patients were taken off the drug because of side-effects, it was stopped early because they did not recruit enough patients.

www.theguardian.com...

2) It seems that this study (ACTT-1) was completed and it found that Remdisivir may be effective in reducing the amount of time spent in the hospital. www.thebottomline.org.uk...

3) There are still studies being planned with Remdisivir vs placebo. clinicaltrials.gov...


Perhaps you misunderstood something, somewhere.

a reply to: Phage

Behind that ray of hope, though, was one of the toughest quandaries in medicine: how to balance the need to rigorously test a new medicine for safety and effectiveness with the moral imperative to get patients a treatment that works as quickly as possible. At the heart of the decision about when to end the trial was a process that was — as is often in the case in clinical trials — by turns secretive and bureaucratic.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has described to STAT in new detail how it made its fateful decision: to start giving remdesivir to patients who had been assigned to receive a placebo in the study, essentially limiting researchers’ ability to collect more data about whether the drug saves lives — something the study, called ACTT-1, suggests but does not prove. In the trial, 8% of the participants given remdesivir died, compared with 11.6% of the placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant.

A top NIAID official said he had no regrets about the decision.

Inside the NIH’s controversial decision to stop its big remdesivir study

a reply to: TheRedneck

And none of those 5 trials mirrored the treatment proposed by front line doctors.

Yes yes.... Alien Demon Seed woman and the partisan front AAPS. Those frontline doctors?

Sure.

a reply to: puzzled2

Yes, I know.
But what does that have to do with your claim?

I seem to remember the Remdesivir trial wasn't completed because it appeared those on the control placebo group would at a higher risk of dying

The trial was not ended. It was completed. Your source:

When the remdesivir results were announced, the NIH said the data came from an “interim” analysis. This means that a study was stopped early because a drug’s benefit was so undeniable that it would be unethical to continue the study. But Lane said this was incorrect. The data come from a preliminary final analysis, a point at which the study would normally end.

The study found a statistically insignificant reduction in deaths and it was not halted. It seems that you did, indeed, misunderstand.
I gave you a link to that (completed) study.

a reply to: Phage

Here's one that looked at your precious zinc.

You think they'll stop at Zinc? Once that's found to be ineffective they'll start clamoring onto other excuses. Maybe a daily consumption of chicken soup is needed as well? How can you leave that important piece out??

a reply to: Phage
did miss this phrase
a study was stopped early-- Not completed, Stopped Early due to the ethics of the placebo group dying if the trial was run until all datasets had been completed -- Didn't misunderstand a thing.

You are wrong, the trial didn't run the complete course, all the data was not collected and you will never admit being wrong so have a nice day. Don't reply as you will only embarrass yourself more.

a reply to: puzzled2

did miss this phrase
a study was stopped early

No. But apparently that's where you stopped reading.

The study was not halted. And there was no statistically significant influence on death rates shown by the use of Remdisivir.

You can ignore the published results if you wish.

a reply to: infolurker

Dr. Fauci should probably be put in jail. His resistance to hydroxychloroquine, In Spite of how well it has worked in other countries, has cost up to 100,000 American lives.

Proof: twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Fauci has no power over the use of hydroxychloroquine.

has cost up to 100,000 American lives.

Prove it. Gatewaypundit is bull#.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Actually, I was talking about doctors in general who have reported success. There are quite a few, and they are from all over the world. Are they all quacks/liars?

TheRedneck